Search results

Client & counsel name: MMiqa, Self-Represented Appealed case name & style: MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] DCR 142 Appealed Court Order: [2026] DCR 142 Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff Reason for appeal: The Appellant, MMiqa, was fined 20 PU for using...

P-002: From hausfeld.com, stating "One of the most significant challenges currently facing legal professionals is the phenomenon of AI hallucinations which occur when an AI system generates information that sounds plausible but is entirely false, such as fictitious case law. Unlike human error...

P-001: Section used in the appeal from thr IBM's website.

Edited this part to erase a possible confusion.

I have fixed some grammar mistakes, I believe the PO can see the changes I have made. For reference, laws that talk about Ex Parte Communication: The Judicial Code of Ethics, Section 3.3, defines ex parte communication as: - "Ex parte communication (private discussion with one party about a...

No, I have not, Justice Muggy21. I filed my defense in this matter, but Judge Superwoops's order did not address the core legal arguments raised, including the statutes I have relied upon. Given that this defense already addresses the same conduct now under appeal, and that repeating the same...

Client & counsel name: MMiqa, Self-Represented Appealed case name & style: MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] DCR 142 Appealed Court Order: [2026] DCR 142 Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff Reason for appeal: I. THERE IS NO PROOF OF PRIVATELY CONTACTING...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE Your Honor, The Defendant's answers contain a direct self-contradiction and a legal error that the Plaintiff wishes to bring to the Court's attention. First, the self-contradiction. The Defendant answered...

Your Honor, I have edited for grammar fixes and changed the word "case" with "guess" in the last paragraph to erase the possible confusion that can rise from that wording. I know Judges can see the changes made but the Plaintiff wishes to explain the reason behind it.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT RE-SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES Your Honor, First of all, the Plaintiff wishes to thank Judge Superwoops for allowing the Plaintiff to rephrase these questions. The Plaintiff submits the following interrogatories to the Defendant: 1- How...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT Motion to Reconsider Your Honor, I stated that I never stated my guess as a fact to the court. I have stated in the "Facts", that CreeperTD participated in the vote. This was something I knew. The guess the Plaintiff had was not mentioned...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT Your Honor, Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff moves to amend the Complaint to add the following facts: FACTS 6. Part IV, Section 2(2) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act states: "All...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY EVIDENCE Your Honour, Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following evidence into the record: P-006 - CreeperTD's join date obtained from the server using /about command, showing "Join Date: May 25...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT MOTION TO COMPEL Your Honor, According to Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 4.8, it is stated that "Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked. Objections to Interrogatories must be made within 24 hours. Requests...

1921

Response to Objection Editing the Evidences, sorry Your Honor, its very late for me and I have made this mistake because of it.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Your Honour, This Court should not find the Plaintiff guilty of Ex Parte Communication because the elements of that offence are not met, on multiple independent grounds. First, the Plaintiff's message was not...

Response to Objection Your Honor, I wish not to repeat myself here, I have given my answer in the post #117, that in my mind I had the educated guess that CreeperTD voted Aye, but since I had no proof, I left that ambiguous in the court filing, as I said in my response before. The Plaintiff...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE Your Honor, The Defense's Motion to Reconsider describes the Plaintiff's disclosed uncertainty as: This is not legal argument. It is a personal, insulting characterization of the Plaintiff, unsupported by...

Yes, in part. In my mind I thought CreeperTD voted Aye, but at the time of filing I had no proof, so I left it ambiguous on purpose. I made an educated guess but never explicitly stated what CreeperTD’s vote was while filing this lawsuit. When I filed the Complaint, BAR had not disclosed how...